The High Court has refused an application to strike out three paragraphs of Facebook Ireland Limited’s defence in a defamation action brought by Eoin McKeogh. The paragraphs responded to allegations that Facebook Ireland’s participation in separate proceedings involving national newspapers contributed to reputational harm and aggravated damages claimed by the plaintiff.
The underlying action followed the online circulation, in late 2011, of a video identifying McKeogh as a person allegedly evading a taxi fare, along with statements on a fake Facebook profile alleging criminal activity. The judgment records that an interim injunction was granted in January 2012. In May 2013, Peart J. made further orders, including directing Facebook Ireland to provide an electronic copy of the fake profile. The judgment says Facebook Ireland had not provided that information and had indicated it was not in a position to do so. The order was under appeal to the Supreme Court at the time of this judgment.
The present motion sought, among other relief, the committal of Facebook Ireland managing director Sonia Flynn for alleged contempt over the profile and the court’s orders. At the hearing, the plaintiff accepted that committal could not proceed because no order had been made against Flynn and she had not been served. The judge also said a further requested direction was no longer relevant, while noting that the plaintiff could bring other motions about the alleged deletion of the profile or non-compliance with court orders. The court therefore considered only the request to strike out paragraphs 54–56 of Facebook Ireland’s defence.
Those paragraphs disputed the plaintiff’s account of Facebook Ireland’s role in an earlier application to restrict newspaper reporting. They pleaded that the application had characteristics of a “super injunction”, that Facebook Ireland had standing to address the court, and that the application’s publicity and outcome could be relevant to the claimed harm. Facebook Ireland also said it would rely on section 35(1)(h) of the Civil Liability Act 1961 in relation to alleged contributions by other parties to any loss.
Justice Gilligan found the challenged pleading directly answered the plaintiff’s claim that Facebook Ireland’s intervention worsened the effects of publicity. He considered the paragraphs relevant and material, and not prolix, scandalous or prejudicial to a fair trial. The motion’s requested reliefs were refused. The ruling did not determine the underlying defamation claim, whether the plaintiff suffered the alleged damage, or whether the profile had been deleted or destroyed.